Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-10T20:53:24.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The expressive power of fixed-point logic with counting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2014

Martin Otto
Martin Otto*
Affiliation:
Mathematische Grundlagen der Informatik, RWTH Aachen, Ahornstrasse 55, 52074 Aachen, Germany, E-mail: otto@mephisto.informatik.rwth-aachen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We study the expressive power in the finite of the logic Fixed-Point+Counting, the extension of first-order logic which is obtained through adding both the fixed-point constructor and the ability to count.

To this end an isomorphism preserving (‘generic’) model of computation is introduced whose PTime restriction exactly corresponds to this level of expressive power, while its PSpace restriction corresponds to While+Counting. From this model we obtain a normal form which shows a rather clear separation of the relational vs. the arithmetical side of the algorithms involved.

In parallel, we study the relations of Fixed-Point+Counting with the infinitary logics and the corresponding pebble games.

The main result, however, involves the concept of an arithmetical invariant. By this we mean a functor taking every finite relational structure to an expansion of (an initial segment of) the standard arithmetical structure. In particular its values are linearly ordered structures. We establish the existence of a family of arithmetical invariants with the following properties:

• The invariants themselves can be evaluated in polynomial time.

• A class of finite relational structures is definable in Fixed-Point+Counting if and only if membership can be decided in polynomial time on the basis of the values of one of the invariants.

• The invariant r classifies all finite relational structures exactly up to equivalence with respect to the logic

We also give a characterization of Fixed-Point+Counting in terms of sequences of formulae in the : It corresponds exactly to the polynomial time computable families (φn)n ∈ ω in these logics.

Towards a positive assessment of the expressive power of Fixed-Point+Counting, it is shown that the natural extension of fixed-point logic by Lindström quantifiers, which capture all the PTime computable properties of cardinalities of definable predicates, is strictly weaker than what we get here. This implies in particular that every extension of fixed-point logic by means of monadic Lindström quantifiers, which stays within PTime, must be strictly contained in Fixed-Point+Counting.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Symbolic Logic , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , March 1996 , pp. 147 - 176
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

[1]Abiteboul, S., Vardi, M. Y., and Vianu, V., Computing with infinitary logic, 4th international conference on database theory, ICDT '92, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 646, Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Abiteboul, S., Fixpoint logics, relational machines, and computational complexity, Proceedings of the 7th IEEE conference on structure in complexity theory, 1992.Google Scholar
[3]Abiteboul, S. and Vianu, V., Fixpoint extensions of first-order logic and datalog-like languages, Proceedings of the 4th IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, 1989, pp. 71–79.Google Scholar
[4]Abiteboul, S., Datalog extensions for database queries and updates, Journal of Computer and Systems Science, vol. 43 (1991), pp. 62–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Abiteboul, S., Generic computation and its complexity, Proceedings of the 23rd ACM symposium on theory of computing, 1991, pp. 209–219.Google Scholar
[6]Cai, J., Fürer, M., and Immerman, N., An optimal lower bound on the number of variables for graph identification, Combinatoria, vol. 12 (1992), pp. 389–410; a prelimineary version appeared in Proceedings of the 30th IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, 1989, pp. 612–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[7]Dawar, A., Lindell, S., and Weinstein, S., Infinitary logic and inductive definability over finite structures, Information and Computation, vol. 119 (1995), pp. 160–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[8]Ebbinghaus, H.-D., Extended logics: The general framework, Model-theoretic logics (Barwise, J. and Feferman, S., editors), Springer-Verlag, 1985, pp. 25–76.Google Scholar
[9]Grädel, E. and Otto, M., Inductive definability with counting on finite structures, Computer science logic, selected papers from CSL '92, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 702 (Börger, E.et al., editors), Springer-Verlag, 1993, pp. 231–247.Google Scholar
[10]Grohe, M., Diplomarbeit, Universität Freiburg, 1992.Google Scholar
[11]Grumbach, S. and Tollu, C., Query languages with counters, Proceedings of the international conference on database theory, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 646 (Biskup, J. and Hull, R., editors), Springer-Verlag, 1992, pp. 124–139.Google Scholar
[12]Gurevich, Y., Algebras of feasible functions, Proceedings of the 24th IEEE symposium on foundations of computer science, 1983, pp. 210–214.Google Scholar
[13]Gurevich, Y., Towards logic tailored for computational complexity, Computation and proof theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1104 (Richter, M. M.et al., editors), Springer-Verlag, 1984, pp. 175–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Gurevich, Y. and Shelah, S., Fixed point extensions of first order logic, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, vol. 32 (1986), pp. 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Härtig, H., Über einen Quantifikator mit zwei Wirkungsbereichen, Colloqium on the foundations of mathematics, mathematical machines and their application (Kalmar, L., editor), 1965, pp. 31–36.Google Scholar
[16]Immerman, N., Upper and lower bounds for first-order expressibility, Journal of Computer and System Sciences, vol. 25 (1982), pp. 76–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Immerman, N., Relational queries computable in polynomial time, Information and Control, vol. 68 (1986), pp. 86–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Immerman, N., Expressibility as a complexity measure: Results and directions, Proceedings of the 2nd conference on structure in complexity theory, 1987, pp. 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Immerman, N., Descriptive and computational complexity, Computational complexity theory, proceedings of the AMS symposium in applied mathematics (Hartmanis, J., editor), vol. 38, 1989, pp. 75–91.Google Scholar
[20]Immerman, N. and Lander, E., Describing graphs: A first order approach to graph canonization, Complexity theory retrospective (Selman, A., editor), Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[21]Kolaitis, Ph. and Väänänen, J. A., Generalized quantifiers and pebble games on finite structures, Proceedings of the 7th IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, 1992, pp. 348–359.Google Scholar
[22]Kolaitis, Ph. and Vardi, M., Infinitary logics and 0-1-laws, Information and Computation, vol. 98 (1992), pp. 258–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[23]Otto, M., Generalized quantifiers for simple properties, Proceedings of the 9th IEEE symposium on logic in computer science, 1994.Google Scholar
[24]Rescher, N., Plurality quantification, this Journal, vol. 27 (1962), pp. 373–374.Google Scholar
[25]Vardi, M., Complexity of relational query languages, Proceedings of the 14th ACM symposium on theory of computing, 1982, pp. 137–146.Google Scholar
[26]Wegener, I., The complexity of Boolean functions, Teubner, 1987.Google Scholar